Tweet
OBAMA AND CHANGE - BUT HOW?
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Jan 22 2009
Turkey
Barack Obama is officially the President of the United States. For
nearly, two months not only the US, but also the world discussed
his election, his team, and the change he would bring to the White
House. After eight years of Republican control, the West Wing passed
to the hands of Democrats again. The George W. Bush administration,
lately condemned for all the evil faced by Americans and the World
has been replaced with a young, vigorous administration associated
with the banners of change and hope. Nevertheless, Obama inherited
the economic recession, Iraq failure, rising tension with Iran and
Russia, and rising anti-Americanism. Change will take place, yet its
extent is unknown.
The Reality and Expectations
The first signals from Obama administration about change are that it
will not come in an abrupt and radical way. The team of rivals does
not propose a major change but rather offers a change in tone in short
term or may be called a slow moving change in the long-term. Frankly,
Obama is proposing a genuine change, because an abrupt change is not
a genuine change. Moreover, he seems to know that the presidency is
not a post from which to give orders but a position to convince and
cooperate. His inclusion of republicans in his team and certain posts
are evidence for his bipartisan approach. Some analysts even claim that
he is moving to center. This bipartisan approach will ease passing the
bills he needs to deal with the internal and external problems. Besides
his bipartisan approach, his presidential popularity will help to
get the support of republicans in a less painful process. Indeed,
what he proposes is not radically different from the republicans.
As most from the presidents do, Obama will probably focus on the
domestic issues rather than foreign policy in the first several
months. The main reason is of course his fresh presence in office and
inexperience in foreign policy issues. This is not unique, for Obama is
actually same as previous presidents who were inexperienced in foreign
policy. For instance, Bill Clinton, a governor candidate, acted in a
similar manner. Second, the primary expectation from him is to solve
the economic problems, not the foreign policy issues. Moreover, the
honey moon will end after a couple of months, and moving strategically
necessitates using the bipartisan support credit wisely. Thus, the
economy will be the cardinal issue in Obama's agenda, and the bills
for the economic plan are the primary goal to attain.
This will both help solve the major issues and have a spillover
effect on the other issues. Besides, this provides extra time for
the foreign policy issues that Obama probably will not and cannot
change in a short time period, such as the troop withdrawal from Iraq
and closure of the Guantanamo Bay. At least giving the orders and
implementation are different from each other. First of all, Robert
Gates did not endorse the 16-month plan, and asserted that putting
time limits on the withdrawal is not wise. Moreover, it is hard to
withdraw the troops from Iraq in such short time. Consequently, with
the name of residual force or other tern it seems that the US will
keep a certain number of troops in Iraq. On the other hand, the number
of troops in Afghanistan along with the NATO powers will increase.
Obama's National Security Advisor James L. Jones prioritizes
Afghanistan and gives importance to shifting the War on Terror from
Iraq to Southern Asia. He strongly claims that the primary frontier
for the War on Terror is Afghanistan and the Iraq War was a total
mistake. Obama's statements from the beginning of the campaign indicate
his accordance with his advisor. This move makes the idea of sitting
on the table with Iran and Syria more meaningful. The withdrawal
necessitates the endorsement of neighbor countries in order to keep
the region stable. These parameters may initiate a peace process
between Syria and Israel in order to stabilize and secure the region.
Turkey and the US' Relations - Change in the Main Discourse?
These parameters also have an important role on relations with Turkey
and the approach to the PKK issue. Turkey is an influential neighbor
of Iraq and an important actor in the region that the US has to take
into account for its interests in the region. Compare to Iran and
Syria, Turkey is a democratic country andtherefore is a better role
model for Iraqi government. Since the PKK is the primary obstacle to
economic and political cooperation between the Iraqi administration and
Turkey, a closer relationship between Turkey and the US against the
PKK is expected, with a high possibility of troop withdrawal. Bush's
declaration of the PKK as a terrorist organization and the sharing
of intelligence between the US and Turkey were turning points in the
bilateral relations. In the new term this cooperation may develop in
depth and width with other issues. Thus, the Obama administration
will maintain the existing policy of suggesting a solution between
the Turkey and the Iraqi administration about the PKK problem and
this may have a cooperative role in the elimination of PKK.
On the Armenian issue, during the campaign Obama pledged to use
unwelcomed phrases by the Turkish side on April 24th of 2009. Joe Biden
as the Vice President and Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House
are to the Armenian Diaspora in the US. This means the likelihood
of Armenian lobby's success is high. However, the advantageousness
of this success to Armenia is questionable. Obama's statements on
the issue will probably cause a reaction in the Turkish public and
prevent, or at least delay, the normalization in bilateral relations
between Turkey and Armenia.
Turkey is willing to solve its problems with Armenia, and President
Gul's visit for the soccer match under certain public pressure is a
solid evidence for this willingness. Nonetheless, such statements
will increase tension and will make harder for Turkish leaders to
propose a rapprochement to Armenia under such public pressure. Thus,
the unwelcomed statements will complicate the relations and reopening
of the Turkish-Armenian border. As another factor, Obama will probably
be informed and warned about the importance of Turkey. Thus, Obama as
the chief diplomat may not be as blatant as he was in the presidential
campaign. Or at least this administration may try to balance this
with more favorable moves to Turkey about other issues. For instance
the US may make major moves on the elimination of the PKK to please
Turkey as a balancing issue in a likelihood of the compromises given
to Armenian lobby. Yet, regarding both the PKK and Armenia issues,
it will be wiser for Turkey to follow a pro-active foreign policy
instead of waiting for Obama and his actions on issues.
In short, Obama brings a moderate, slow-moving change, yet the hope
lingers.
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Jan 22 2009
Turkey
Barack Obama is officially the President of the United States. For
nearly, two months not only the US, but also the world discussed
his election, his team, and the change he would bring to the White
House. After eight years of Republican control, the West Wing passed
to the hands of Democrats again. The George W. Bush administration,
lately condemned for all the evil faced by Americans and the World
has been replaced with a young, vigorous administration associated
with the banners of change and hope. Nevertheless, Obama inherited
the economic recession, Iraq failure, rising tension with Iran and
Russia, and rising anti-Americanism. Change will take place, yet its
extent is unknown.
The Reality and Expectations
The first signals from Obama administration about change are that it
will not come in an abrupt and radical way. The team of rivals does
not propose a major change but rather offers a change in tone in short
term or may be called a slow moving change in the long-term. Frankly,
Obama is proposing a genuine change, because an abrupt change is not
a genuine change. Moreover, he seems to know that the presidency is
not a post from which to give orders but a position to convince and
cooperate. His inclusion of republicans in his team and certain posts
are evidence for his bipartisan approach. Some analysts even claim that
he is moving to center. This bipartisan approach will ease passing the
bills he needs to deal with the internal and external problems. Besides
his bipartisan approach, his presidential popularity will help to
get the support of republicans in a less painful process. Indeed,
what he proposes is not radically different from the republicans.
As most from the presidents do, Obama will probably focus on the
domestic issues rather than foreign policy in the first several
months. The main reason is of course his fresh presence in office and
inexperience in foreign policy issues. This is not unique, for Obama is
actually same as previous presidents who were inexperienced in foreign
policy. For instance, Bill Clinton, a governor candidate, acted in a
similar manner. Second, the primary expectation from him is to solve
the economic problems, not the foreign policy issues. Moreover, the
honey moon will end after a couple of months, and moving strategically
necessitates using the bipartisan support credit wisely. Thus, the
economy will be the cardinal issue in Obama's agenda, and the bills
for the economic plan are the primary goal to attain.
This will both help solve the major issues and have a spillover
effect on the other issues. Besides, this provides extra time for
the foreign policy issues that Obama probably will not and cannot
change in a short time period, such as the troop withdrawal from Iraq
and closure of the Guantanamo Bay. At least giving the orders and
implementation are different from each other. First of all, Robert
Gates did not endorse the 16-month plan, and asserted that putting
time limits on the withdrawal is not wise. Moreover, it is hard to
withdraw the troops from Iraq in such short time. Consequently, with
the name of residual force or other tern it seems that the US will
keep a certain number of troops in Iraq. On the other hand, the number
of troops in Afghanistan along with the NATO powers will increase.
Obama's National Security Advisor James L. Jones prioritizes
Afghanistan and gives importance to shifting the War on Terror from
Iraq to Southern Asia. He strongly claims that the primary frontier
for the War on Terror is Afghanistan and the Iraq War was a total
mistake. Obama's statements from the beginning of the campaign indicate
his accordance with his advisor. This move makes the idea of sitting
on the table with Iran and Syria more meaningful. The withdrawal
necessitates the endorsement of neighbor countries in order to keep
the region stable. These parameters may initiate a peace process
between Syria and Israel in order to stabilize and secure the region.
Turkey and the US' Relations - Change in the Main Discourse?
These parameters also have an important role on relations with Turkey
and the approach to the PKK issue. Turkey is an influential neighbor
of Iraq and an important actor in the region that the US has to take
into account for its interests in the region. Compare to Iran and
Syria, Turkey is a democratic country andtherefore is a better role
model for Iraqi government. Since the PKK is the primary obstacle to
economic and political cooperation between the Iraqi administration and
Turkey, a closer relationship between Turkey and the US against the
PKK is expected, with a high possibility of troop withdrawal. Bush's
declaration of the PKK as a terrorist organization and the sharing
of intelligence between the US and Turkey were turning points in the
bilateral relations. In the new term this cooperation may develop in
depth and width with other issues. Thus, the Obama administration
will maintain the existing policy of suggesting a solution between
the Turkey and the Iraqi administration about the PKK problem and
this may have a cooperative role in the elimination of PKK.
On the Armenian issue, during the campaign Obama pledged to use
unwelcomed phrases by the Turkish side on April 24th of 2009. Joe Biden
as the Vice President and Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House
are to the Armenian Diaspora in the US. This means the likelihood
of Armenian lobby's success is high. However, the advantageousness
of this success to Armenia is questionable. Obama's statements on
the issue will probably cause a reaction in the Turkish public and
prevent, or at least delay, the normalization in bilateral relations
between Turkey and Armenia.
Turkey is willing to solve its problems with Armenia, and President
Gul's visit for the soccer match under certain public pressure is a
solid evidence for this willingness. Nonetheless, such statements
will increase tension and will make harder for Turkish leaders to
propose a rapprochement to Armenia under such public pressure. Thus,
the unwelcomed statements will complicate the relations and reopening
of the Turkish-Armenian border. As another factor, Obama will probably
be informed and warned about the importance of Turkey. Thus, Obama as
the chief diplomat may not be as blatant as he was in the presidential
campaign. Or at least this administration may try to balance this
with more favorable moves to Turkey about other issues. For instance
the US may make major moves on the elimination of the PKK to please
Turkey as a balancing issue in a likelihood of the compromises given
to Armenian lobby. Yet, regarding both the PKK and Armenia issues,
it will be wiser for Turkey to follow a pro-active foreign policy
instead of waiting for Obama and his actions on issues.
In short, Obama brings a moderate, slow-moving change, yet the hope
lingers.